Hegseth tells lawmakers about plan to detain immigrants at bases in Indiana and New Jersey
Hegseth notified members of Congress from both states this week of the proposal to temporarily house detained immigrants at Camp Atterbury in Indiana, and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey.
President Donald Trump has moved to aggressively detain and deport people in the country illegally, a push that has swept up large numbers of immigrants, including many with no prior criminal records, and forced federal authorities to find places to house them.
Hegseth said the presence of the detainees would not negatively affect the bases' operations or training. Officials have not said when detainees could begin arriving at the facilities or if other military bases are under consideration.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump's border czar Tom Homan said there are about 60,000 beds currently available for detained immigrants and the goal is to expand to 100,000.
'We're looking for any available bed space we can get that meets the detention standards we're accustomed to,' Homan said Friday. 'The faster we get the beds, the more people we can take off the street.'
Democratic lawmakers from both states and civil rights advocates condemned the idea of housing immigrants at the bases, questioning the impact on military resources and the justification for so many detentions.
'Using our country's military to detain and hold undocumented immigrants jeopardizes military preparedness and paves the way for (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids in every New Jersey community,' New Jersey's Democratic delegation said in a statement.
Democratic Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana said his questions about detainee conditions have gone unanswered by the Trump administration.
He cited concerns raised about conditions at other facilities and said, 'The fact that ICE has detained so many individuals that they now need to expand detention space in Indiana is disturbing.'
Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said in a statement that housing immigrants in military facilities sets a dangerous precedent 'and is contrary to the values embedded in our Constitution.'
Both of the bases identified by Hegseth have housed Afghan or Ukrainian refugees in recent years.
During Trump's first administration, he authorized the use of military bases to detain immigrant children — including Army installations at Fort Bliss and Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas.
In 2014, President Barack Obama temporarily relied on military bases to detain immigrant children while ramping up privately operated family detention centers to hold many of the tens of thousands of Central American families who crossed the border.
___
Associated Press writers Christine Fernando and Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
White House to unveil plan to push US AI abroad, crackdown on US AI rules, document shows
By Jarrett Renshaw WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The White House on Wednesday intends to publish a plan that calls for the export of American AI technology abroad and a crackdown on state laws deemed too restrictive to let American AI flourish, a document seen by Reuters shows. According to a summary of the draft plan seen by Reuters, the White House will bar federal AI funding from going to states with tough AI rules and ask the Federal Communications Commission to assess whether state AI laws conflict with its mandate. It will also promote open source and open weight AI development and "export American AI technologies through full-stack deployment packages" and data center initiatives led by the Commerce Department. The plan will "focus on empowering American workers through AI-enabled job creation and industry breakthroughs," according to the document. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The document shows President Donald Trump is laser-focused on removing barriers to AI expansion, a marked departure from former President Joe Biden, who feared U.S. adversaries like China could harness AI to supercharge its military and harm allies. Biden, who left office in January, imposed a raft of restrictions on exports of coveted American AI chips to China and other countries that could divert the semiconductors to China over national security concerns. Trump rescinded Biden's executive order aimed at promoting competition, protecting consumers and ensuring AI was not used for misinformation. He also pulled back Biden's so-called AI diffusion rule, which capped the amount of American AI computing capacity that some countries were allowed to obtain via U.S. AI chip imports. Last month, White House AI czar David Sacks downplayed the risk that coveted American AI chips could be smuggled to bad actors and expressed concern that regulating U.S. AI too tightly could stifle growth and cede the critical market to China. Under Trump's plan, the White House would also promote AI use at the Pentagon, launch a program to identify federal regulations that impede AI development, and streamline the permitting process for data center construction. (Writing by Alexandra Alper, Editing by Franklin Paul) Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Trump Executive Order on College Sports Unlikely to Move the Needle
President Donald Trump is weighing an executive order that would attempt to stabilize the business and law of college sports but might instead kindle new legal challenges. A draft of the order, obtained by Yahoo, adopts the viewpoint that big-time college sports has morphed into an unworkable, volatile and overly litigious framework. The order negatively references unlimited transfers, the prospect of college athletes gaining employment recognition and a 'chaotic race to the bottom' with states opportunistically using NIL laws to supply 'competitive advantages' to their universities. More from Sporticast 468: 'Pay Us What You Owe Us' Nevada WR Catches Court Win as NCAA Eligibility Cases Split NBA Seeks Supreme Court Review of 'Bork Bill' Case After Split Rulings Dubbed 'Saving College Sports,' the order directs several federal officials and agencies— including the U.S. Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Secretary of Education, the U.S. Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board—to pursue policies that would allegedly ensure the 'long-term availability' of college sports opportunities. Another aspiration is 'greater uniformity, predictability, and cooperation with respect to Federal and State laws and enforcement practices concerning college athletics.' The order provides several specific requests. They include agency actions within 60 or 120 days and a directive that 15 U.S.C. 7802—the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, a law that Sportico revealed has not been enforced—be enforced. For the most part, however, the order is aspirational and refrains from enunciating policy positions. Notably absent are declarations that the NCAA and its members ought to be exempt from antitrust scrutiny or that college athletes aren't employees. The absence of many specifics is important for several reasons. For starters, agencies that would be directed by Trump are already capable of issuing regulations and other administrative actions to exert control over college sports. To that point, in the last week of Joe Biden's presidency, federal agencies entered the college sports legal debate without an accompanying executive order. The Department of Education issued a fact sheet expressing that colleges paying athletes for their NIL counts as athletic financial assistance under Title IX. A month later, Trump's Department of Education rescinded that fact sheet. Biden's Department of Justice also filed a statement of interest in the House litigation. The statement expressed that a revenue share cap of $20.5 million, while better than not sharing any revenue, is still an antitrust problem, because it's a cap that hasn't been collectively bargained. The DOJ under Trump didn't pursue the issue as U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken weighed the granting of final approval to the settlement. To be sure, a Trump executive order would elevate the importance and urgency for those agencies to tackle college sports issues. But it's not an essential ingredient. Agencies could act on their own just as they did in January. Also consider how agencies would implement Trump's order. The more agencies look under the hood of college sports, the more likely they'll see potential drawbacks and limitations of weighing in. The federal government doesn't control the universe of college sports issues, some of which extend well beyond government control. Take employment. A federal declaration that college athletes aren't employees would presumably mean they're not—at least as the Trump administration sees it—employees under the two most relevant federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. That type of declaration would be challenged in court, since it is a debatable interpretation of federal statutes. Put another way, whether college athletes are employees under the NLRA or FLSA is ultimately a question for the courts, not an agency or even the president. That is particularly true given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Judges are no longer expected to defer to agency interpretation when a statute is ambiguous, meaning judicial deference to agencies, including those in the Trump administration, has been reduced. Even assuming an agency declaration that college athletes aren't employees withstood judicial review, it wouldn't foreclose the possibility of athletes being recognized as employees under states' laws. There are labor and employment laws in all 50 states, and they vary. There's also the chance that a college or conference voluntarily recognizes athletes as employees, a move that has not happened at least in part because it would violate NCAA rules. But such a move is not implausible—especially since collective bargaining with college athletes would put an end to antitrust lawsuits over those athletes' rights. Even if an agency declaration says that any, and all, conflicting state employment laws are preempted by federal action, that wouldn't automatically make preemption happen. Preemption is a highly litigated topic that intersects with powers enunciated by the U.S. Constitution and would surely be litigated in this context. Antitrust is another relevant subject for Trump's possible executive order. The draft states that though the settlement resolving the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations will provide back pay and revenue sharing, it 'provides little assurance that it will not soon be upended by new litigation seeking more compensation with fewer rules, further reducing in the number of student-athletes.' Trump might want the NCAA, conferences and colleges to be exempt from antitrust scrutiny or to receive deferential treatment. On the surface, a Trump or agency-announced antitrust exemption or deferential standard would make it more difficult for athletes to sue regarding topics like compensation and eligibility. But the president and his agencies can't change the language of the Sherman Act, which has applied to college sports for decades and which the U.S. Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston (2021) said not only governs NCAA rules but does so without deference. It's also noteworthy that conservative judges, including those whom Trump nominated, have been among the most critical of college sports amateurism from an antitrust perspective. And there are state antitrust laws, too, that fall outside of federal authority and thus outside any executive order. Trump might want the Department of Justice to take a permissive approach to antitrust issues in college sports. One could say the DOJ under both Republican and Democratic presidents has already done that: Save for the DOJ joining Ohio v. NCAA (2024), which concerned transfer rules, and suing the NCAA in 1998 under the Americans with Disabilities Act over treatment of college athletes with learning disabilities, the DOJ has largely been on the sidelines. Meanwhile, a long list of athletes, from Ed O'Bannon to Shawne Alston, sued the NCAA on antitrust grounds. That highlights a key point: Private individuals and businesses can bring antitrust lawsuits. The government isn't needed since federal antitrust law provides for a private right of action. No matter how the DOJ and other agencies oversee college sports, athletes will continue to be able to bring antitrust claims. There are still other legal complications from a potential executive order on college sports. Any order that leads to college athletes being denied the same rights and opportunities as their classmates would invite an Equal Protection lawsuit. Restricting athletes' expressions, including through limiting NIL opportunities, could trigger First Amendment and right of publicity litigation. Trump might not need an executive order to influence college sports. If the SCORE Act passes Congress—a big 'if' given that college sports bills in Congress in recent years have all flamed out—Trump would have the chance to sign a college sports act into law. Of course, the SCORE Act could be challenged in court, including on grounds mentioned above. But given that it would be federal law, it would stand a stronger chance of sticking than an executive order. Best of College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Trump withdraws US from ‘woke' UNESCO for second time
The United States will pull out of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization at President Donald Trump's request, the White House announced Tuesday. 'President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from UNESCO — which supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November,' White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement. In February, Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of State Marco Rubio to review UNESCO and other international organizations which may 'promote radical or anti-American sentiment.' The announcement is the latest development of a tug-of-war between two rival administrations: The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 2019, citing concerns of anti-Israel bias during Trump's first term, but rejoined under President Joe Biden in 2023. UNESCO is the United Nations' cultural arm focused on 'strengthening our shared humanity.' The organization addresses global issues, like climate change and artificial intelligence, by conducting research and setting standards for member nations; it also oversees global heritage sites. Audrey Azoulay, director-general of UNESCO, said in a statement that she 'deeply regrets' the decision, which will take effect in December 2026. However, she said the announcement was 'anticipated' and the organization has prepared, leaving it 'better protected in financial terms.' 'The reasons put forward by the United States to withdraw from the Organization are the same as seven years ago even though the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism,' Azoulay said. French President Emmanuel Macron offered his 'unwavering support' for UNESCO, calling the organization a 'universal guardian' for science and culture, among other things. 'The withdrawal of the United States will not weaken our commitment alongside those who lead this fight,' Macron wrote on X. But not all nations condemned the decision. Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Gideon Sa'ar cheered Trump's latest withdrawal, thanking the U.S. for 'its moral support and leadership.' 'This is a necessary step, designed to promote justice and Israel's right for fair treatment in the UN system, a right which has often been trampled due to politicization in this arena,' Sa'ar said in an X post. Both the U.S. and Israel have accused UNESCO of taking an anti-Israel stance, as the organization has expressed 'deep concern' about the 'humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.' The organization has also come under fire for its 2023 publication of a racism and discrimination tool kit, which the Trump administration has railed against. 'Like many UN organizations, UNESCO strayed from its founding mission,' State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce wrote in a post on X. 'Going forward, U.S. participation in international organizations must make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.'
